Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Coalition Airstrikes Continue to Pound Gadhafi; The White House's Mixed Messages on Libya; Terror Attack Rocks Jerusalem; Israeli's Ehud Barak on the New Middle East
Aired March 23, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program. I'm joined by E.D. Hill and Will Cain.
E.D., what have you got for us tonight?
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yemen, the hub of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and the country has just enacted sweeping changes to the constitution, emergency law. The question is, is civil war far behind?
SPITZER: Could be the next hotspot.
Will, what's going on with you?
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Building on the theme of the night, why are we in Libya? Humanitarian reasons, regime change? I got an interview to try to answer that.
SPITZER: All right. We have a lot to talk about tonight but we begin in Libya where five days into the campaign and coalition forces control the skies. Civil war rages on the ground. Yet President Obama still hasn't answered the most basic question about America's military operations, what is our mission?
Because there are at least two totally different statements coming out of the White House. Let's first listen to the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Colonel Gadhafi needs to step down from power and leave.
I also have stated that it is U.S. policy that Gadhafi needs to go.
Moammar Gadhafi has lost legitimacy to lead and he must leave.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: But then moments ago on this network the deputy national security adviser contradicted the president saying America's policy in Libya is not one of regime change. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DENIS MCDONOUGH, DEP. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR: As it relates to the specific question, Wolf, we're not setting out with a policy of regime change here. We set out a very defined goal here which is we would shape the environment and enable our international partners to take over the no-fly zone. We're on the verge of doing that.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: So which is it and how can you run a military operation if you don't know with clarity what your objective is?
We'll ask former director of National Intelligence John Negroponte in a moment.
But first let's go live to Arwa Damon in Benghazi where resistance forces are struggling to regroup after weeks of relentless attacks by Gadhafi forces.
Arwa, how have the air strikes impacted the opposition's ability to move forward and regain critical ground?
ARWA DAMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Eliot, they've impacted that significantly, more importantly many people will tell you that without those air strikes, the residents of Benghazi quite simply would have eventually been massacred.
What we have seen happening since those air strikes really began pounding Gadhafi's military machine that was just outside and even inside Benghazi was the opposition capitalizing on that, driving Gadhafi's forces further back to the city of Ajdabiya.
It's around 100 miles west of Benghazi and there, though, we're seeing where their military shortcomings really come into play. They're right now stationed just a few miles outside of the northern entrance to Ajdabiya.
They're telling us that air strikes have been pounding Gadhafi's tanks stationed there. They've managed to destroy three of them but not all of them. The opposition really still struggling to move forward because of the heavy artillery and tank barrage that is being fired at them.
One has to remember that the opposition fighters are not much more than civilians who effectively have learned how to fight over the last few weeks. They're out there with very little military experience. They don't even have body armor.
Many of them are telling us, their commander is telling us that they need weapons and equipment to be able to move this fight to the last stage, the air strikes most certainly dealing Gadhafi's forces a devastating blow but for the opposition to be able to deal Gadhafi's military a final blow. That's going to be a really, really big challenge here-- Eliot.
SPITZER: So it sounds to me, Arwa, like what you're saying is that unless we somehow show up with arms and training and something more than air support, we could be heading towards a stalemate in the desert in this battle.
DAMON: Well, that of course is the concern and it's a very real concern, because of the fact that this opposition military isn't even a military at all. Look, these people out there on the frontline and you talked to them, they have a lot of heart, they have a lot of courage.
They keep saying that they're doing the best that they can, that they are going to fight this out to the death and they most certainly will, but the big concern from a military perspective, and this is what their commander told us, General Younis, was that without the equipment, without the weapons, this is going to drag on for a very long time. And it is going to be very, very bloody.
The concern, of course, is that whilst this is dragging out how many lives are going to be lost, what is the expense going to be? We look at these areas that Gadhafi's military has effectively entrenched in putting themselves out of reach of the air strikes because of concerns for collateral damage. And we look at this humanitarian cost and we listen to these eyewitness reports talking about massacres at the hands of Gadhafi's forces and one shudders to think how many more lives are going to be lost until this is somehow brought about to an end until there is some sort of resolution.
SPITZER: All right, thank you, Arwa.
Now let's take a hard look at the confused messages coming out of the White House about what are our mission in Libya really is. Here to help us understand it is Ambassador John Negroponte, a career diplomat of more than 40 years and a former National Intelligence director under President George W. Bush. He joins us tonight from Naples, Florida.
Ambassador, welcome.
JOHN NEGROPONTE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UNITED NATIONS: Thank you.
SPITZER: Look, you've heard the opening segment here. Don't we need a policy clearly articulated that says our policy is regime change and then a military strategy to get us across that finished line?
NEGROPONTE: Well, I think what the president is trying to do is make a distinction between the immediate short-term purpose of our military action which is humanitarian, which is to protect the civilians, and the longer political context, longer-term political context which is that Mr. Gadhafi must go and that Libya deserves a political change.
But he is making a distinction between the short-term military action on the one hand and our overall political purpose on the other.
SPITZER: But isn't there a problem here because one thing that seems to be clear from the entirety of the relationship with Gadhafi and you have studied him, and we'll get to that in a moment, is that without military pressure he's simply not going to go.
And I want to quote something that the president said yesterday in an interview with CNN that I found a little surprising. He said, "Maybe it is not a matter of military might but instead an idea that's come to the Libyan people that it's time for a change that will sweep Gadhafi out of power."
Now, look, we might have hoped that would be the case two months ago or a year ago but at this point in time, is it possible to believe that an idea will force Gadhafi out rather than military force?
NEGROPONTE: Well, I think the idea is certainly what got a lot of all of these movements in the -- in the Middle East started but the president also made reference in his discussion in Brazil to the fact that other than military means we also have other tools, such as support of political nature that we can give to the Libyan forces, the encouragement that we can give to the Europeans, to remain consistently engaged in this.
After all I think one of the messages of this whole experience so far that the president is trying to convey is that Europe, so close as it is to Libya, has a strong stake in this and really ought to take a lead role along, of course, with those countries in the Arab world that are interested, as well.
So I think this is a very interesting experiment, if you will after having been -- the United States having been accused of unilateralism all these years, he's trying to make a real multilateral approach work, I think -- I think it's worthy of our attention and support.
SPITZER: Well, look, there is a distinction, though, between multilateralism which means that we do this with Britain and France and other allies, as well and a lack of clarity about purpose because I think what I think many people are finding confusing, including many on Capitol Hill and many in the foreign policy establishment, is this tension between do we need Gadhafi out, and if we do so, how do we get there.
Because what the other tools are that you just talked about would include, one might presume, recognizing the opposition but we haven't done that yet -- or arming the opposition, we haven't done that yet either.
So what are the other tools that might be sufficient to actually accomplish what the president said his objective was?
NEGROPONTE: Well, I think, first of all, as far as the military side of things, I think what the president is saying is we're not going to do the entire job for the Libyan people and the Libyan opposition. It's not for us to do and it might not even be politically desirable in the North African context.
But as far as what tools are available and what other things could be done I certainly think getting to know the opposition better, sending representation to Benghazi, for example, a U.S. diplomatic representation, getting to know this transitional council, looking at the different ways in which we can be helpful from economic, military, political, psychological and other fashions.
Don't forget, this -- these events unfolded extremely rapidly. At first I think there was a certain euphoria and we thought that the Libyan opposition was going to gain the upper hand very quickly. And then there were serious and rapid reverses and so I think the president felt that if he didn't act immediately last week, that there was a real risk that there'd be no opposition left to be talking about this evening.
So I think that was the first thing he wanted to do was keep them in the game and now we've got to see the situation stabilized, identify who the opposition is, get the command and control arrangements sorted out amongst the coalition and then we'll take it from there.
You use the word stalemate or the reporter did, I think there is a risk of a bit of a stalemate at the start, but it's better than total collapse of the opposition effort.
SPITZER: Well, certainly, Ambassador, you're absolutely correct that last week when Benghazi was about to be retaken by Gadhafi, that was the moment when the president stepped in and said we've got to intervene at this point.
But here's my question. Would you now not at this moment recognize the opposition as the legitimate voice which would then facilitate the provision of economic and political and perhaps even other forms of military assistance? In other words, France did that quite some time ago. I'm a little surprised we haven't recognized them as the official voice of Libya.
NEGROPONTE: I think that's a very good question. I don't know the degree to which we're acquainted with all the actors over there, but that's certainly one of the issues that's got to be on the administration's agenda, getting to know them better. Identifying the leadership, figuring -- figuring out ways in which we can be supportive.
SPITZER: Look, we have just a few seconds left, Ambassador. But you studied Gadhafi a fair bit. You were the director of National Intelligence during the period when we were trying to rebuild that relationship. The administration took him off the state terror list.
Will he leave without being forced from office militarily? Is there any way to deal with him at a rationale level to get him to abandon his position?
NEGROPONTE: Well, I think he's a very stubborn and obstinate person. I think the word defiant is the word that I've heard used more often about him in the last few days. He's also very tribal.
I think it's going to be very hard to persuade him or to negotiate him out of office. I think that's very unlikely. So he's either going to be defeated militarily or his own people -- his own people in his immediate entourage might turn against him, but I don't think he's just going to leave voluntarily.
SPITZER: All right. Ambassador John Negroponte, thanks so much for being with us.
Coming up, does America look weak in how it's handled the Middle East revolutions? We'll hear from one close ally who says yes. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Terror robbed Jerusalem earlier today. A bomb left in a bag near the city's central bus station during rush hour killed one and injured some 50 people.
Tonight Israel is reeling from the terror attack which also comes after a week of escalated violence along Israel's border with Gaza.
Kevin Flower, CNN's Jerusalem bureau chief, was on the scene moments after the explosion occurred. Kevin is with us right now.
Kevin, let me ask you this. It's been several years since there's been a blast of this sort in Jerusalem. How are folks there reacting to this renewed surge of violence?
KEVIN FLOWER, CNN JERUSALEM BUREAU CHIEF: Well, Eliot, today specifically in Jerusalem, it was a scene that Jerusalem residents hadn't seen for a number of years here. And specifically the image of an explosion near a public bus.
That brings back a lot of nightmarish memories for Jerusalem residents going back about a decade to the -- second Palestinian intifada when suicide bombings attacking buses and other public locations within Jerusalem and other locations in Israel were a regular occurrence. Sometimes even a weekly occurrence.
As you said, there has been an increase in violence, not in Jerusalem but between Palestinians and the Gaza Strip, Palestinian militants, and the Israeli military who have been exchanging tit for tat, military blows, Gaza militants firing rockets into southern Israel, and the military here in Israel responding with deadly air strikes that have killed some 10 Palestinians since Saturday, Eliot.
SPITZER: Kevin, have there been claims of responsibility often after a blast like this some terrorist group or another puts up a flag saying we did that. So far any word on who was responsible for this deadly act?
FLOWER: At this point, no. There have been no claims of responsibility. And the Israeli -- the Israeli authorities have put -- actually put a gag order on all of the information regarding the investigation, so we don't have any clear idea who could be responsible. Many in the Israeli government, though, are pointing the finger towards Palestinians, though, which group, who might specifically be responsible, no one really knows at this point. And it may be days or it could be weeks before those answers are known -- Eliot.
SPITZER: Thank you for that report, Kevin.
Yesterday I sat down with Ehud Barak, Israel's most highly decorated soldier. A former prime minister, a military hero, and now minister of defense. I asked him about Israel's fragile future and the new Middle East swept up in a wave of revolt.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Minister, good to have you here.
EHUD BARAK, ISRAELI DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Thank you.
SPITZER: So let's be real about this. You have had several decades of a cold peace with Egypt. A cold peace based on the relationship with Hosni Mubarak and the military, the elites of Egyptian society.
If Egypt is going to become a democracy, does that change the strategy in dealing with Egypt as a nation?
BARAK: I believe that the real needs of Egypt, especially the economic relationship, the need to feed extra million people every nine month, that's something that is limiting constraints there, room to go elsewhere and I believe there will be -- remain committed to international commitments including the peace possibly in Israel -- out of their need to keep the relationship with --
SPITZER: With everybody says that, everybody hopes that is the case, but we all understand there are domestic priorities and domestic imperatives that drive foreign policy.
If Egypt becomes a democracy, if the Muslim Brotherhood wins 15 or 20 percent of their legislative branch this June, how does that change the possibility of peace with Egypt?
BARAK: It changes. It's not kind of trivial. There will be clearly a loosened grip on the Sinai and the smuggling of ammunitions or whatever into the Gaza Strip. I hope that the role of the military which is in Egypt is highly appreciated by the Israeli military, upward social mobility -- young villager.
It's a major kind of major pillar of stability in Egypt. I don't see the Muslim Brotherhood taking over, throwing the army into a corner, so there will be certain equilibrium that will be achieved. We don't know exactly how it will look like and I feel that there is no immediate threat to the peace process.
In the longer term no one can predict what will happen. The Arab society is still opened -- totally un-pluralistic. You cannot expect a Jeffersonian democracy to (INAUDIBLE). SPITZER: Have you begun to reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood to say, look, we need a relationship?
BARAK: No.
(CROSSTALK)
BARAK: We are quite glad that we are not part of the picture. That in the central peace of the screen, and Egypt and other corners in --
SPITZER: I want to move to Iran for a minute. You used the phrase time is running out.
BARAK: Yes.
SPITZER: Iran, nuclear bombs, you have said for a long time, Iran with a nuclear bomb is an existential threat to Israel. You have said only a credible military threat will keep them from getting it. What does that mean? What is a credible military threat?
BARAK: You know, I think -- they should know that their world is ready to act. We keep telling friends and we take it upon ourselves to leave all options on the table. But the time is still time for paralyzing, crippling sanctions that could work.
But there should be -- leaders should carry in mind that long before the Iranians will either reach an explodable device or a weapon they probably might develop a weapon for ground-to-ground missile and probably later on build a ground-to-ground -- ground-to-ground missile that can reach western Europe.
Now it's not just about Israel. It's about the whole world order. And I believe they reach this threshold situation or explodable device, they will enter into domain of immunity where practically you cannot do anything against them because it's too redundant, too many sides, too many talents, too many --
SPITZER: When does that happen?
(CROSSTALK)
BARAK: -- protection. I don't know. It could happen in a year. It could happen probably for the United States in a year and a half, but it's not unlimited and it should impact the pace upon which the leverage of sanction is used because if you had five years you can say, OK, we play now with gradual sanctions.
If you have only a year and a half, you have to reach the culmination point before you enter into a place where it's not an issue for leaders but only for commentators on TV.
SPITZER: But is this happening? Right now everybody is focusing on Libya and everybody is focusing on Yemen, not on Iran.
BARAK: Absolutely. The Iranians are celebrating. Probably they're celebrating too early because it could reach them. I hoped it would jump directly to Tehran. (INAUDIBLE) to Bahrain. We can't influence this. But they're celebrating their short time because they feel more room for maneuver and you are right. We could --
SPITZER: Are they more powerful --
BARAK: We could miss it.
SPITZER: Are they more powerful now because without Egypt as a counterweight they are the dominant Arab military?
BARAK: You know, even before this whole earthquake, historic earthquake, you could see around the Gulf leaders strike to hedge their bets vis-a-vis Iran and the United States to start to see who is really more convincing of the future kind of hegemony and it's -- and it's not easy to say, but in the minds of many leaders in the region, America had been weakened by the recent event because some of them see the way you respond as you are being tough on soft autocrats and soft on tough autocrat. That's the kind of contradiction disturbs them.
SPITZER: That's why we have to get rid of Gadhafi. We have to get rid of Gadhafi.
BARAK: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Because otherwise you just --
BARAK: I think that the world -- yes. I think that the world should have responded to Gadhafi probably three weeks earlier. It would be much better. Three weeks later it will be too late and I hope it's not too late.
SPITZER: Is it already too late?
BARAK: I hope not. You know, but if we want to avoid another Bosnia or Rwanda whatever, or Darfur, you have to act. It's like in a tennis court. You cannot -- you cannot honor the situation too much when the ball is coming to you. Either you respond or not.
The time was ripe for response probably earlier and I think that the president is right when he said that empty words will not work and -- and Gadhafi must go.
SPITZER: Right.
BARAK: But there is certain -- still certain contradiction. You cannot --
SPITZER: But you waited too long.
BARAK: Yes. You cannot still -- no, you cannot --
SPITZER: You don't want to criticize him but he waited too long. BARAK: Yes. You cannot tell on one hand Gadhafi should go and the same time, explain to your own public that it's going to take a few days because it's going to take few days. The other side knows it, as well.
SPITZER: Right.
BARAK: He will bite his lips and those --
SPITZER: How do we get rid of Gadhafi now?
BARAK: I cannot give my own kind of a blueprint for it but it -- it's a slightly more complicated than the eye meets because it's not -- it will not suffice to suppress his air --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: The no-fly zone won't do it.
BARAK: Yes. No-fly zone alone won't do it. It will not suffice to destroy his air defense system or his command-and-control system, because he can send his people with civilian -- even with civilian clothes to go into Benghazi or into other city.
You -- and probably at certain point the tribal leaders will hope that NATO or the United States will deliver Gadhafi on a -- on a silver plate which won't happen, as well. So there is a need for delicate combination of actions. I think that the (INAUDIBLE) not to pursue him personally is right at least before and that -- but there should be certain momentum and Gadhafi should expect that if he waits, it will turn worse rather than better in order to be convinced to save us the all this say of really running after him to the last end.
SPITZER: Last question. We think the Mossad knows everything. Did the Mossad predict these revolutions?
BARAK: No, we -- basically the opening of this, you know, both our intelligence and the military intelligence and the Mossad told us that a year was high (ph) potential (ph) for turnarounds, kind of -- kind of changing of direction, change -- a paradigm shift in the Middle East because of the age of leaders. Mubarak, Abdullah, whatever.
It happened to surprise all of us but I don't criticize the Mossad. I ask you honestly, if Mubarak and (INAUDIBLE), and Bin Ali in Tunisia and Gadhafi could not predict it. They have much more interest into in identifying it before it happens. If they could not know it no one can and in this regard it's not a surprise.
SPITZER: Right, right. Minister, thank you for coming through it.
BARAK: Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In Yemen tonight, a showdown is looming between the embattled president and a determined opposition.
My colleague E.D. Hill has the latest.
HILL: Well, Eliot, the parliament just a few hours ago suspended the constitution. They approved sweeping emergency legislation that expands the government's power to arrest and detain any opposition. And it's really the latest signal that the tension in Yemen is escalating.
Barbara Bodine is the former ambassador to Yemen. She joins us from Washington.
Ambassador, thank you so much for being with us.
BARBARA BODINE, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO YEMEN: My pleasure.
HILL: What does this mean? This latest move to suspend the constitution and enact this emergency law.
BODINE: Well, the enactment of the emergency laws directly related to the events of last Friday. But I think it also needs to be seen in the broader context of negotiations that have been going on back-and-forth between the government and the opposition to begin a process for a new constitution, for new electoral laws, and for new elections according to President Saleh today as early as the end of this year.
HILL: Let me ask you about that because the --
BODINE: Yes?
HILL: -- a group of the opposition came up with this offer for the president.
BODINE: Right.
HILL: Here, we want, tick, tick, tick and by the way, we want you out by the end of 2011. Well, he finally came back and he said, OK, I'll take it.
BODINE: Right.
HILL: And then they said, no, we're pulling it. Are they -- are they united?
BODINE: No, this is -- this is one of the -- I think one of the major frustrations and also one of the dangers is that the opposition is deeply, deeply divided. The agendas run the entire spectrum and as a result, there are times when it feels like the demands are goalposts on roller skates, that as soon as a demand is met, then it's either changed or it's moved -- and this has made this whole process of trying to come up with some kind of a political transition, I think extremely frustrating, extremely difficult and, therefore, rather volatile.
HILL: So, out of all these different opposition groups that have basically come together and said, well, we may not be crazy about each other but we definitely don't like him -- is there any one person who has the charisma or the power that could step in when the president leaves? I think it really is a question of, you know, when sooner versus later.
BODINE: Right. There isn't. There isn't a clear successor on the government side. There isn't a clear successor on the opposition side.
And, you know, if the opposition is held together only by this desire to have the president step down and they can't even decide when, I think it's going to be very hard for someone to pull it together. But there is not even a successor group or entity that it can clearly step in when the president does move on.
HILL: Well, frequently we look at the military and you say, perhaps there's a military leader that can step in there. No one like that?
BODINE: No, and I think we should be very careful not to take the Egyptian template and put it on to Yemen. As we've seen, the military itself is divided, and the commanders who came forward quite recently and moved over to the opposition side carry some very extraordinary baggage in terms of how they're perceived by the general Yemeni population. The Yemeni military writ large does not have the same political, economic or social status as the Egyptian. And it is very deeply divided.
So, I don't think we should look to the military for the solution.
HILL: We've been talking to folks watching the program about why Yemen is so critical right now.
BODINE: Right.
HILL: The State Department calls it an urgent threat. Only yesterday, 13 al Qaeda terrorists were killed in southern Yemen and for those of us in America, you know, this comes real close to home, October 2000, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula attacked the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden, killing 17 sailors. You look at that ship, and, you know, who can forget that?
And then, of course, you got that so-called underwear bomber who was also from Yemen and he was apprehended after nearly setting off the explosive.
BODINE: Yes.
HILL: So, we know that the president of Yemen has been helpful with us and other governments in trying to battle al Qaeda. Who will continue fighting them with us if he goes?
BODINE: First of all, I should point out the underwear bomber was actually Nigerian. But, yes, he did get his training in Yemen.
I think this is one of our major concerns is that even now, forget the -- you know, when we get to successors but even now, there's something of a vacuum. The military is divided. It's focused on the demonstrations, the government attention is focused on the political crisis, and so, they can't possibly be giving the attention to al Qaeda -- and this creates a vacuum within which al Qaeda can operate.
I will say that amongst the broad range of opposition, there isn't a group or anyone who I believe would actually support al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. So, it would be a question of the degree and the kind of support we would have to rebuild in order to continue to go after them.
HILL: Well, you just mentioned how there's not that much planning for what's next in Yemen.
BODINE: Yes.
HILL: But here at home, the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, said it's too soon to call an outcome. We basically have done no planning for after Saleh. Is that shortsighted on our part?
BODINE: I don't -- no, I don't. First of all, it was very hard to see what was going to come and I watched your previous piece. Nobody saw what was coming in the Middle East. And we can't really plan until we know who we're planning with.
I think the first thing we need to do with the transition government, the interim government, whatever comes in before the next election is to sit down and really begin a dialogue with them and we know most of the players. So, we're not starting from a cold start and we're going to have to rebuild this and find out where we go next.
I think one of the things that we very much need to do is to broaden our policy from a very security-centric policy and really work with whomever in Yemen on addressing some of the core problems that this country faces -- education, demography, health, education. If we don't help the Yemenis, any government, really address these issues and governance, then, you know, we're never going to quite get the al Qaeda issue under control.
HILL: Like many countries, education, then jobs and if you don't have the two of those thing, the people are not happy.
BODINE: Exactly.
HILL: Ambassador Bodine, thank you very much for being with us.
BODINE: My pleasure. Thank you.
HILL: Appreciate you tonight. BODINE: Thank you.
HILL: So, that is a place we continue watching. I know a lot of the focus is on Libya, but we cannot let Yemen out of our sights.
ELIOT SPITZER, HOST: You know, E.D., every week, it's a different country, a different revolution, but the same thematic, and that's the point you're making in that excellent interview. Thanks so much.
HILL: Thanks.
SPITZE: All right. Fear of radiation in the food chain gripping Japan tonight. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: In Japan, new fears of radiation from the damaged nuclear reactors contaminating the food supply. In Tokyo, iodine levels in tap water spiked to twice what's considered safe for infants, prompting a run on bottled water.
Here in the U.S., the FDA has banned the imported milk, fruit and vegetables from the region near the reactors.
Chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, was on the ground in Japan. He joins us now from Atlanta.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Sanjay, thanks for joining us. Is it safe to drink the water in Japan?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think as things stand now for a small population of people, the infants, primarily, they're saying it's not OK to drink the water -- and this is obviously a change in tone of message. It's a concern, but not a huge one probably for the average person in Japan.
Look, numbers matter here. Eliot, let me just give you a little bit of context. They're measuring a radioactivity levels. They use a particular unit for this, and what they found that the level was 210. The acceptable upper limit for infants is 100. For adults, 300. So, 210 right in the middle there.
Obviously, this is a concern if things -- if the numbers start to go up. I've been -- as you mentioned -- following the story all along and know they've been measuring levels and there have been spikes in the past. They came back down. But now, they say the numbers are up. They're staying elevated and that's why they made this warning about the water.
Part of the issue as well, Eliot, is the anxiety about bottled water. I mean, having covered stories like this, I can tell you that the public perception is, this water is now bad. They're also being told not to hoard bottled water. Well, unfortunately, those messages directly conflict for most people. So, I think the anxiety part this is going to be a real issue. And we're talking about internal contamination, drinking water. There's also the concern for levels go up, could people become externally contaminated, you know, by bathing, for example, in, you know, ground water or tap water. So, these are issues that are going to need to be addressed.
SPITZER: Well, help me out here with something that is, I'm sure, is very simple to you but I'm not a scientist and a doctor the way you are. How does radiation get into water and get into vegetables in the first place? I just don't intuitively see how that happens.
GUPTA: Well, you know, so you have this plant, you have these reactors -- they spew these radioactive particles. Typically, what happens, Eliot, is they bind to dust and that's where you get this term radioactive dust. That can fall to the ground -- that can settle in crops, that can settle in grass, for example, that cows eat, cows eat this grass that's contaminated with radioactive iodine, that can be concentrated in their milk. And that's basically what we're seeing.
Now, if this dust falls, there are going to be certain crops that are more vulnerable, spinach, you know, has big leafs -- that's going to be more vulnerable. But, corn, for example, which has a thick protective husk that's going to be peeled away, less vulnerable. Carrots grow underground for example, is going to be less vulnerable.
That's precisely what we've been seeing, you know, in terms of upper limits -- limits above normal for various things. For example, in the prefectures you mentioned, raw milk up to 17 times the limit. Tap water, we just talked about. Spinach, 27 times the limit.
So, these are the sort of numbers that we're seeing right now as things stand and they, you know -- again, this is an ever-changing story, these levels, these numbers important -- they may change, Eliot.
SPITZER: All right. Well, let me ask the question that we're concerned about here, of course, does any of this affect us here back in the United States? Is there any food getting into the food chain that we've got to worry about or water, bottled water from any place, or even that plume of radiation? Although I think I've seen that theory knocked down. How much of this do we need to worry about?
GUPTA: Well, talking about food and food products. I mean, you know, it's interesting -- I followed this all along. At first, the message from the FDA when we're reporting this was, look, we already screen a lot of food for radiation but, you know, we challenged them on that. And they say it's fair to say we don't screen all of it.
So, then they said, well, we're going to screen all of it coming from Japan, and, by the way, only 4 percent of our food comes from Japan anyway. So, that was the answer. And now, you heard the latest news where they're saying, basically, we're going to ban these various products coming from Japan -- milk products, some fruits, some vegetables. So, that ban is going to be in effect.
Big question, the question I'm going to be trying to answer and look for is: how long is that ban going to be in effect? You know, these particles, radioactive iodine, for example, they have a half- life, Eliot, about eight days. So, once the leak stops, how long do you keep the ban in effect?
Some people will say, you got to keep it in effect for a long time because there's other radioactive particles that have longer half-lives, but, you know, part of this is just sort of trying to do -- make the best science out of what you know. This is some uncharted territory here.
SPITZER: All right. Last question, Sanjay -- am I correct that I have concern about the plume of radiation that was going to hit us through the air -- concerns about that have pretty much dissipated and that has been knocked out -- as a concern we should take?
GUPTA: I think for what the person really is wanting to know, is this going to affect my health, the answer is yes. Will radiation levels go up? Yes, they have already. I mean there's been monitors that triggered in Seattle and California along the West Coast, but how consequential is that? Not very consequential at all.
We've talked about this before. But you get a certain amount of radiation just doing your average life, you know, working in a television studio is going to give you a certain amount. Background radiation is present for everybody.
But even when it comes to the food product, now, I think this is an important context. Let's say you did eat that spinach, this stem that has these radioactive particles, if you ate spinach every single day for a year, this spinach, you would get the same amount of radiation essentially in one CAT scan. Not negligible by any means.
SPITZER: Right.
GUPTA: Impact on human life? Not likely.
SPITZER: All right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks as always for those insights.
GUPTA: Thank you, Eliot.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Up next: phase one of the military operation in Libya is being labeled a success but what is the long-term plan?
And the passing of a beloved Hollywood legend -- when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: A no-fly zone over Libya has been established and Gadhafi's air force is now all but nonexistent. The first step of the coalition mission in Libya appears complete. However, the end game in Libya remains unclear.
Will Cain has more on that -- Will.
WILL CAIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The end game remains unclear -- the objective, the goal, the tactics. Absurdly, three days into a war, we're asking these questions. I'm going to tell you why -- because we haven't answered a simple question. Why are we in Libya?
Not to toot my own horn, but I've been asking that question for weeks. And I asked it again earlier today to Peter Beinart, senior political writer at the "The Daily Beast." Check it out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CAIN: So, I'm joined by a very smart guy, somebody I like very much and who I think I disagree with on most issues -- senior political writer for "The Daily Beast," Peter Beinart.
So, Peter, I don't think I'm the only one that's confused here. John Boehner sends a letter to President Obama today saying, what are we doing? What are we doing in Libya.
So, humanitarian reasons, get rid of Gadhafi. Humanitarian reason, regime change.
Please, please, I beg you, give me a clear answer. What are we doing in Libya?
PETER BEINHART, SR. POLITICAL WRITER, THE DAILY BEAST: I think the problem is humanitarian reasons in getting rid of Gadhafi are linked. So, the rationale is to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, a slaughter by Moammar Gadhafi. But how can you ever be sure you will have succeeded if Gadhafi is still in power.
There is a dynamic that tends to happen in this kind of operations in which the goal increases. And politically I think the success or failure of this will be judged by whether Gadhafi is still in power at the end.
CAIN: So, let's those one at a time. First, you suggest, yes, humanitarian reasons are a big part of this. And that's a noble goal. But, you know, right now in the world, there's something like 5.4 million deaths going on in the Congo, in the human rights atrocities going on there. So, you know, people who suggest they're much smarter to me then say, well, you can't use the consistency argument in foreign policy, it doesn't make sense.
But it seems to me that if your justification is a moral purpose, that it's a humanitarian crisis, if you apply that inconsistently, if you apply when you feel like it -- how moral is that? BEINART: The problem is we can't do it everywhere. What matters in these cases a lot is proximity, frankly. We did it in Bosnia because in Kosovo because, they were right next to where NATO lived.
CAIN: So, we're moral if you're close to us?
BEINART: We can do it if you're close to us. We're seeing how logistically difficult this is. And big part of the reason we're doing this, remember, is because France stepped up, and Libya -- they're Mediterranean countries. Libya is their Mexico. So, they have a big stake.
So, they pushed us to do that and that, in the real politic world, why this happened.
CAIN: You know, the other suggestion you gave, and we heard President Obama say it there, is regime change. You said, hey, they're inseparable. But you're now in the completely the same game on regime change. I can rattle off countries that are ruled by terrible dictators. In fact, I wouldn't be only backward-looking -- I can look just a few weeks out from now. Terrible guys in Yemen and Syria maybe in positions where, as you said, they could be toppled, is a doable purpose.
Is that what we're going to do? Is that our role?
BEINART: Frankly, it would be much harder. It's not doable in the same way. There are certain conditions that have to exist with humanitarian war in the real world. And the question is do you want to do it never or do you want to do it in those circumstances where we can which means that we are close enough logistically and there is no adversarial great power who has a sphere of influence. That's the key.
CAIN: Now, we're going to Libya, a place that someone described as one of these countries that are tribes with flags, deeply divided country. And we think we can go in, cut the head off the country, Gadhafi, and bring into power -- what? What can we bring that's better?
BEINART: We have no idea what we're going to bring. That's the reality. I think as a sheer matter of politics, if Gadhafi goes, it will be seen as a success probably regardless of what follows as long as there's some -- someone who can keep the country together who is not a murder on Gadhafi's scale.
But this is the big experiment. We really have no idea and frankly didn't know in Bosnia or Kosovo or Afghanistan either what would happen once you took this kind of rock -- this totalitarian rock that was keeping society down.
CAIN: It seems to me odd we that haven't answered these questions, that we don't identify the goal, we don't explain why we're going to Libya, we don't try to estimate what would be next before we go to war. We're three days in, an American plane hit the ground and we're still asking questions. BEINART: But, you know, that incoherence is not only Barack Obama's.
CAIN: No, no.
BEINART: It's the American people's. The truth is, the American people as in many things, they want to define the goal in a broad way, get rid of this guy, but they don't want to pay the costs -- and it's that fundamental dichotomy that is creating the politics that Barack Obama is trying to operate in.
CAIN: Isn't that incumbent upon our leaders then to tell the American people the reason that we're risking American lives?
BEINART: Yes, but the problem is Americans are actually not willing to risk American lives, I think, for anything in Libya. And so, the ugly reality --
CAIN: So, the question, should we be doing it then?
BEINART: Well, the question is can you gamble you can achieve something without the loss of U.S. lives? We got lucky in a couple of examples in the 1990s. We'll see whether we do here.
CAIN: You got this great line in your article. I encourage anyone to visit "The Daily Beast" and see some of your writing. You got this great line, the article. You said, "In the end, foreign policy is determined by the elites."
And I am at the same time, knowing that is true, and I'm chapped by that suggestion, it bothers me -- because I know that three weeks from now there is a good likelihood that some plane will be shot down over Tripoli and some mother in someplace like Missouri or north Texas, places like I feel like I'm from, is going to have a soldier knock at her door and tell her that her son or daughter has died in Libya. And when she wonders why we've gone, she's not going to get a clear answer.
There's going to be no consistent logical principle. There's certainly no vote by the American people as to why her kid died. All that we're left with is this -- in my opinion this -- arrogant suggestion that we can ad hoc, arbitrarily pick the countries we decide to help and I'm just not sure that's enough.
BEINART: Look, I have family members who have been deployed since September 11th -- may or will be deployed again. So, I know what you're talking about.
The reality is the American people -- to be really blunt about it -- the American people are not generally willing to sacrifice their sons and daughters for -- to prevent humanitarian catastrophes around the world. That's the truth. They'll only do it for American security, but elites, particularly in the last, I would say, generation, have decided that there is this moral mission. Do the American people really believe in it? Not actually at the cost of our blood and treasure. That's the fundamental dichotomy here. CAIN: All right. Peter, I appreciate you answering these questions directly.
BEINART: My pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CAIN: So, Eliot, I think that's the question that needs to be asked. We're hearing it from guys like Peter, but we don't hear it from our leaders.
SPITZER: Well, actually, it's going to be a conversation we continue. American public supports the mission in Libya when they're polled and when they're asked.
Anyway, when we return, the amazing life and the legendary career of film star Elizabeth Taylor.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Elizabeth Taylor in her own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
ELIZABETH TAYLOR, ACTRESS: Well --
"Big girls need big diamonds."
Do I make you nervous?
"Everything makes me nervous, except making movies."
"I have a woman's body and a child's emotions."
I'm not living with you. We occupy the same cage. That's all.
"I don't pretend to be an ordinary housewife."
"When people say 'She's got everything,' I've got an answer -- I haven't had tomorrow."
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIPS)
SPITZER: "PIERS MORGAN" starts right now.
